Hammond v Mitchell
Express assurances that a partner would share in the home, followed by detrimental reliance, gave her a half share in the house.
Facts
Mr Hammond and Miss Mitchell met in 1977 and lived together for about 11 years. He bought a bungalow in his sole name. He told her that the house would be in his name because of tax problems arising from his divorce, and that she should not worry because, when they were married, it would be half hers anyway. She supported his business ventures, including by agreeing to the bungalow being used as security for business loans, and helped in his business without pay. When the relationship ended, she claimed a share in the bungalow.
Legal principle
Waite J held that Miss Mitchell was entitled to a half share of the bungalow. The conversations between them amounted to an express assurance that the property was to be shared, and she had relied on it to her detriment by supporting his business and agreeing to the use of the house as security, which exposed her to the risk of losing her home. However, she had no interest in other property, a house in Spain, because there was no evidence of a common intention as to it. Waite J also gave guidance about the conduct of such cases.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
- Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
